SONIA SOTOMAYOR and the SUPREME COURT
By Taylor Jones | June 9th, 2009 | PERMALINK
I, for one, am glad President Obama has chosen the first Latina to be his first nominee to the Supreme Court. And, should Obama get another pick, or two or three, I recommend that men need not apply. With 110 males having served on the High Court, but only two females, I think the guys would have a flimsy case claiming reverse discrimination.
Also, Judge Sotomayor is fun to caricature! She reminds me of a Latina Roseanne Barr. For me, no other qualification is really necessary. Besides, she’ll be replacing David Souter,
whose three claims to fame on the Supreme Court are: he hates Washington and can’t wait to get back to his bachelor cabin in New Hampshire; he wrote the majority opinion saying the rap group, 2 Live Crew, had committed mere parody rather than copyright infringement when they “sampled” Roy Orbison’s mega-hit, “Pretty Woman;” and he bears a considerable resemblance to Stan Laurel. Oh, and he confessed to having received a lot of wedgies when he was in junior high gym class.
But exactly what kind of Supreme Court might Judge Sotomayor be joining? To date, “the Roberts court” has rendered only one important decision: allowing the late Anna Nicole Smith to pursue a piece of her nonagenarian, late oilman husband’s estate. Not every justice was happy with the decision. In a separate opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg declared her fellow, male justices a “bunch of boobs.”
One thing DOES concern me regarding Sonia Sotomayor’s likely confirmation. I know it’s politically incorrect to point this out, but Sotomayor will make for a Supreme Court with SIX Roman Catholics on board! Hell, it’s not her Catholicism that bothers me, per se. Afrer all, it’s hard to be of Puerto Rican heritage and NOT be a Catholic.
…But what if there were five Jews currently sitting on the Supreme Court, and Sotomayor was to become the sixth? Or, God forbid, the sixth Southern Baptist! Some sector of the public or another would be screaming bloody murder. So, if Obama gets another pick, he might want to nominate a good ol’ WASPy, Protestant lady. Or maybe even an atheist. Or, better yet, an alleged atheist who’s really a….”secret Muslim.” That would drive the Fox/Limbaugh crowd crazy! And that would be a GOOD thing — for the sake of diversity!
Once again, thanks for stopping by. If you’d like to see additional samples of my work, please click here.
Comments
Comment from Dave
Time June 13, 2009 at 5:53 am
Very good point. I hadn’t realized the fact of their religious affiliation. It IS curious. And I’ve never heard a word of this in the media.
Comment from Brian B.
Time June 13, 2009 at 6:37 am
Taylor, your comments are precisely what is wrong with liberals. You consider race, gender, religion, etc. before considering the one most very important thing…that being, is the person qualified for the job. As a Supreme Court justice, Sotomayor’s job would be to rule on matters of the Constitution, not on matters of the heart. Four out of five of her decisions that have been appealed to the Supreme Court have been overturned on the grounds that they’re unconstitutional…and she has one that is still pending that will likely be overturned as well (the White firefighters case). Add to this that she is in fact a racist, with her comments that a Latina woman is better suited to make judicial decisions than that of a White man, and any person with a modicum of common sense can see she is not qualified for the job.
Comment from Bull
Time June 13, 2009 at 7:29 am
Sorry to disagree, Brian, but I think your list of qualifications made her fit right in with the rest of these bumbleheaded jerks. Rice and beans will help her pass wind right up there with the best this boys’ club has to offer. Maybe Clarence will pass her a coke. People who are appointed to the Supreme Court for any reason other than judicial temperament and legal expertise are an embarrassment to us all, with the exception of Earl Warren, of course. I find the reference to Jewish justices a bit contrived, however, and hope neither Brandeis nor Frankfurter take umbrage and rescind all their opinions we’ve come to rely upon in this modern era. Catholicism doesn’t bother me, either. My southern Baptist upbringing indoctrinated me to believe that Mary was the icon of the sisters and priests, not Jesus. He does still hang on their cross, correct? While the Holy Mother looks upon us with such angelic repose. Which means that Mary could have aborted this extra-marital pregnancy without harming her grovellette status. Imagine that, John, imagine that.
Comment from DALE
Time June 13, 2009 at 9:39 am
IMHO, people who call Sotomajor a racist are displaying their own racism. Because they base this claim on her statement that she HOPES a wise Latina woman would make better decisions more times than not. That hope is based on the perspective that in a court where white males have ruled the roost forever, a different, previously unrepresented point-of-view (Hispanic, up from poverty,) would provide insights and connections previously left out. Better would mean more inclusive.
I would bet that not one person who ever has struggled for the rights of minorities, whether black or women or disabled, would fail to get her point and that very no one calling her a racist for her expressed view ever did a damned thing to promote civil rights. If I am wrong, call me on it. Why was Clarence Thomas chosen?: Because of his stellar judicial record? No one claims that. He was chosen because he was a black Conservative. His lack of achievement on the court, his muteness, is testimony to his lack of qualification. He was clearly chosen for ideological reasons.
Justices do more than interpret the Constitution; they makes decisions which effect ordinary people in their everyday lives. To say that “heart,” or compassion, or empathy, or let’s just call it humanity is not at the base of wise decisions is to fail to see that compassion is the cause of enlightenment. To factor that out is to render the Constituion and law heartless and sterile. The Constitution is not a machine which requires engineers to keep it running; it is a living organism which requires feeling, thinking judges with diverse life experiences to keep it vital.
To quote George Bush Senior, to call Judge Sotomajor a racist is absurd. And based on her controversial statement of hope, I would concur that the Court would make better decisions with more women, gays, non-believers, Asians, Native Americans, Muslims, et al. The broader and more inclusive the makeup of the Court, the more relevant and humane its decisions will be. That is the argument for representation of the diversity that is America.
As a “white male” I detest the hegemony of white males in the judiciary, politics, and every aspect of life. It is the legacy of generations of bigotry, and the sooner it crumbles, the better. Better Court decisions will flow from the inclusion of all parts of American diversity.
To say that hoping for this outcome is racist is perverse and reactionary. On matters of race (not a scientific concept but a cultural construct meant to codify racism), unless you have actually struggled for civil rights, you risk hypocricy by calling people youi disagree with racist. The Far Right, which historically fought against womens’ suffrage, racial equality, and inclusion of the disabled, is hardly in the position to call anyone racist.
I welcome Judge Sotomajor and feel confident that she will help the court make better decisions, based on her extensive judicial experience and her unique perspective and empathy.
Comment from Steven Hagar
Time June 13, 2009 at 9:53 am
Thanks for this light hearted view of the recent Supreme Court nominee! She will indeed be a nice addition to this exclusive and very powerful club! Hopefully she will figure out that her \"racist/sexist\" views should be kept to herself. If you had written the opposite of her Latina woman vs old white guys comment about her gender/race you would have been skewered by everyone!
There was a time when I would have been all up in arms about any controversial pick for the court. My views have moderated over time because so many appointees when faced with the reality of the job have moderated their views. For the most part they have delivered many solid decisions! I personally view The Supremes (not misspelled) as the most powerful office holders in the land. Mainly due to its appointee nature and life time guarantee of employment!
Lets hope Sotomayor can balance her racist/sexist views with what is best for the country!
Comment from DALE
Time June 13, 2009 at 10:28 am
Steven….can you understand that words and meanings exist within a context? If a white male had said, I hope my decisions will be better more times than not than a Latina, it would not have the positive meaning that Judge Sotomajor expressed hope for. Why not? Isn’t turnabout fair play?
No, the historical facts of white male dominance would make such a statement meaningless. Would more white males on the court increase perspective? Inclusion?
Diversity? No. Would more women, ethnicities, gays, etc. provide more inclusion and diversity? Yes.
You cannot ignore history (well, you can but it will render your judgements shallow) in understanding Judge Sotomajor’s viewpoints. Her perspective, given history, would be unique and expand the perspective of the Court. You cannot say the same about another white male; therefore, your characterization of her “racist” views is not logical because it ignores the historical context of racism and white supremacy in this couintry.
To promote diversity is not racism; to deny it, or equate it with racism, is racist. Everything being equal, you are right, Steven. But evertything is not and was not equal. To create equality, we need people of diverse backgrounds so no one is left out of the calculations.
Obama is a Muslim; Sotomajor is a racist……………..don’t you see this is Rovian wedge politics? It divides the nation. That, I would argue, is not only racist but unAmerican.
Comment from Tim Stocken
Time June 13, 2009 at 11:47 am
It is my view that the framers thought a wide ideological spectrum is ideal representation on the Supreme Court. Conservatives, moderates, liberals, republicans, independents, democrats, whigs, free soilers, bull moosers, greens, etc. To try and level out the playing field, I was hoping President Obama would pick a modern day William O. Douglas, but I knew that would not happen. If he ever does choose a true liberal, it will be the first pick of his second administration, and only if he increases his majorities in both houses of Congress. Since 1968 (41 years), there have only been 12 years of Democratic administrations, and the court is at present overly stacked on the right.
It didn’t matter who the pick was, the republicans were going to raise hell. This is how they do their fund raising, how they get their ink , or videotape. It is why Sarah Palin is dragging the David Letterman thing through the mud - for the exposure… Let’s face it, the republicans don’t have much else going these days.
Dale was right on when he pointed out the hypocrisy of fat white old men even using the term racism. If they have never lifted a finger to help out a minority undergoing discrimination, they have no case EVER in charging reverse discrimination toward themselves or their kind.
What is alarming, however, is the right wing call to arms against the threat of government in the liberty of individuals. Palin did so recently when she implied if the federal government bales the states out of their economic chaos, they will try to dictate the lives of individuals. This sounds to me like a defense of the actions of the murder of Dr. Tiller and the attack on the Holocaust Museum. Heaven help us if the lock and load mentality takes heart.
Comment from Dave
Time June 13, 2009 at 11:52 am
All the whining by the right is irrevelent. She will be confirmed. Actually, most of her cases brought up before the Supreme Court were not ever looked at. Thus, the Court agreed with her. When you take all the cases…..ALL of her cases brought before the Court, you will find that the percentage has dropped to 2% for over turns. In fact Judge Alita stated his family were immigrants. Lots of cases come before him regarding Immigration. He would be thinking of the pain of his parents whenever such cases were seen. Chief Justice also said his faith would be a factor in his decisions. Her qualifications are outstanding. So suck it up republicans. And think of this…..there will probably be at least one more appointment to the Supreme Court in the President’s term. I, certainly, hope another moderate will be appointed. Thus, perhaps, getting the Court on a more reasonable level of logic and law understanding.
Comment from DH Fabian
Time June 13, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Quick comment on abortion: Every argument I’ve heard against abortion has been negated by America’s welfare “reform” policies. Combine this with the past 50 years of serial wars, and then tell me about American values about the “sanctity of life.” I would personally not abort my baby under any circumstances. Period. My choice — and underline the word “my”. I do not, and cannot, make that choice for anyone else.
On to the subject of Sonia Sotomayor, she is obviously fully qualified and capable. I am still personally leery about women in leadership positions due to what we have seen to date: too many women who were out to prove that they can be just as “tough” as the men, and doing so by worsening conditions for women (especially the poor)! If Sonia Sotomayor makes decisions as a woman, a person, and not a woman who is hell-bent to “be as tough as the men” — there is good reason for hope.
Comment from Jim
Time June 13, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Very funny.
Justice Souter did well in the 2 Live Crew case, but I think he really blew it in the Kelo vs. City of New London case. He SHOULD retire.
As for Ms Sotomayor, I have absolutely nothing against her for her ethnicity, her gender, or her opinions on her opinions.
It seems obvious from her record that she is no racist.
I do question her decision in the firefighters case, and this is the BIG one -
In my humble opinion, anyone who believes that any part of the US Constitution does not apply to the states is lacking an essential knowledge of American history, and the US Constitution, and should not be deciding cases that require that knowledge. She is obviously not of Supreme Court quality.
Comment from Jim McDougal
Time June 13, 2009 at 7:29 pm
How can anyone write an objective column if all he/she cares about is gender and/or eyhinicity? That is the biggest thing wrong with the country today. Thios country is in a life and death struggle with a world which mostly hates us and nobody seems to realize it. I am scared to death that my grandkids are going to be living in a far different America than my generation did. We made it through a depression a World War and Korea. After that our leadership has gotten softer and softer. Now we have a commander-in-chief who wants to talk his way out of problems with his fganatical Arab buddies. B.S………..
OneBigA–MistakeAmerica (I was nice. I didn’t spell out the A word )
Comment from Ernie K
Time June 14, 2009 at 3:47 am
This has nothing to do with gender or race, but what it should be based on is the best suitable canidate. How can you argue that?
If you were the best qualified for a job and the selection people said to you, “We needed a woman, or a hispanic to even things out, how would you feel?
Lastly, When hundreds of people take the same intelligence test to become a firefighter, and a couple of idiots who didnt take advantage of studying for the test, who’s fault is it the they didnt pass? But good old Sonya ruled that to be unfair and many people who had taken that test and passed and quit previous jobs are now unemployed. This is not the woman or person for this all important job.
Comment from rose
Time June 13, 2009 at 5:50 am
WITH 5 CATHOLICS ON BOARD HOW HAVE THEY FAILED TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE. NOT THAT I’M ADVOCATING BUT IT DOES INDICATE THAT POSSIBLY CATHOLICS ARE INDEPENDANT THINKERS AND DON’T CALL THE POPE EVERYTIME THEY HEAR A CASE. THE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS: HOW DID WE GET SO MANY CATHOLICS ON THE COURT SINCE WE HAVEN’T HAD A CATHOLIC PRESIDENT SINCE JJOHN F KENNEDY. MORE INDEPENDANT THINKING? HORRORS.